That's true. LoA is simply an observation of the working of that universe. Certainly an unscientific observation.
Are you kidding? Observations of the working of the universe are absolutely scientific-- that is, they are empirical statements that can be scientifically tested. If the LoA is actually true, then it is testable. Are there any experiments which have supported the conclusion that the LoA is true? None that I know of. Hmm, wonder why that is?
LoA is true for me. I declare it so based upon my experience.
Plenty of people will testify that that snake-handling, speaking in tongues, or fortune telling is "true for them" as well, based on their experience. The fact is, what you consider "true for you" and what is objectively true are two very different things. If a practice depends that you buy into its mythology in order for it to have the desired effect, that's a big red glowing neon sign that you could just as easily be using a placebo. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
Ideological atheists or pantheists are no better than people who insist that evolution is false because it "makes people think they're animals" or "turns them into nihilists." The concern is not for what is actually true or false, but what sounds better according to their mindset. Such people are welcome to believe whatever they want, but when it comes to telling the rest of us what is true or not true.....please don't bother. Truth is not your primary concern, and what you say is therefore not a primary concern for those who want truth.